Sunday, August 21, 2016

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA INDIA - A 65-YEAR-OLD WOMAN, SILUVAMMA, WAS MAULED TO DEATH BY AS MANY AS 50 DOGS WHEN SHE WENT OUT TO THE BEACH

Thiruvananthapuram: Rumours of stray dogs turning to man-eaters are giving chills to citizens who reside at Chempakaraman beach on Pulluvila coastal belt here after an elderly woman was mauled to death by around 50 dogs Friday night.

“Unlike in the cities, animal birth control (ABC) programme is something unheard of in all villages under this block panchayat. Stray dog attack in the coastal village has intensified in past three months.

Dogs used to be culled here once upon a time. Our veterinary clinics don’t have the expertise or facilities to spay and neuter them. The dogs are omnipresent as chicken waste from the city is dumped on our beach,” said Johnny J., a block panchayat member from Kanjiramkulam.

Due to the dearth of toilet facilities, children and men folks openly defecate on beaches from Azhimala to Poovar round the clock. Women choose the night to go out and gets bitten up, say residents.

On Thursday, agitated locals swore to cull dogs on their own, since the administration has not been able to provide alternatives. As per recent High Court orders, dog control cells should be formed to coordinate and euthanise critically ill, fatally injured and the rabid ones.

Violent dogs should be isolated till it dies naturally. However, none of this happens. “Our children get attacked while playing on beaches and a man was recently admitted to Neyyattinkara Taluk hospital with 41 bites,” said Shirley Russell, a resident.

Stray dog bite cases have dramatically increased on the city outskirts, and dogs attacked a total of around 6,000 people in the capital. The dearth of anti-rabies vaccine in government hospital often forces citizens to bank on private clinics.

“Last month three school kids and an old man were mauled by stray dogs at Nagaroor near Kilimanoor. Cases are on the high side at Venjaramoodu and Pothencode also,” said Jayaram Krishnan, who keeps a close watch on dog bite cases. An eyewitness says that the limbs of Silvamma, 65, of Pulluvila were eaten by a pack of dogs and doubt they have turned man-eaters.

“Like in the case of other animals, we suspect that the taste of blood has turned them to man eaters,” said Ms Russell. Senior veterinarian LJ Lowrance ruled out the man-eating behaviour of dogs.

“Yes, a pack of dogs can kill people, but it’s very unlikely that they hunt humans and make them food. We are waiting for more ground reports on the incident,” Mr Lawrence said.

A 65-year-old woman was mauled to death by a large pack of stray dogs at the Pulluvila suburban beach near Kanjiramkulam in the state capital. Siluvamma, a resident of the coastal belt, suffered dog bites all over her body and succumbed to injuries while on her way to hospital, according to her family.

The dogs also attacked and chased away the local people who tried to rescue her.

Siluvamma’s son, Selvan, who was also attacked by the pack while trying to rescue his mother, escaped by jumping into the sea.

“My mother went to the beach at night. As she did not return, I went out searching for her. What I saw was shocking. She was being attacked by over 100 stray dogs. She was bleeding all over the body,” Selvan told reporters later.

Meanwhile, in a separate incident, another native of Pulluvila, Daisy, was also attacked and severely injured by stray dogs last night. The 52-year-old, who was rushed to the government medical college here and given anti-rabies injections, said she was attacked by a pack of dogs when she went out of her house around 11.30 p.m. Sources at the hospital said that although she had injuries on her hands and legs, her condition was stable.

She was shifted to the Pulluvila primary healthcare centre for further treatment in the morning, they added.

Threat to people

Stray dogs have been posing a great threat to people, especially women, children and the elderly, in coastal stretches of Kerala, including Pulluvila, for some time.

The issue has been a point of debate in Kerala for the last few years, after an increase in incidents of stray dog attacks, and was also raised in the Assembly earlier this year. According to a report submitted in the Supreme Court recently by a committee appointed by the apex court in a connected case, more than one lakh people in Kerala have been bitten by dogs in 2015-16.

The report looked into the questions of treatment and compensation following attacks by stray dogs in the state.

The report also said that Kerala is estimated to have a stray dog population of 2.5 lakh, which feed on the waste from garbage dumps across cities and towns. According to the panel, the maximum reported cases of dog bites were from Thiruvananthapuram (5,948), Palakkad (4,916), Kollam (3,670), Pathanamthitta (2,892), Alappuzha (2,967), Ernakulam (2,050), Thrissur (2,044) and Kottayam (1,614

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.